Xphobe probably has it right. Given that each generation is in transition, there did there need to be a specific first couple who got all jiggy with each other. There is nothing that would require that the first human male could only have sex with the first human female for all of this to happen. The difference between species at that point would have been so small as to be indiscernible either by them or us. At some point the gene pool we call human would have emerged from others, but not necessarily with a bang (no pun intended. Well, maybe it was).

We are still evolving. Our average brain size is decreasing, wisdom teeth are disappearing, the appendix apparently no longer does what it used to (whatever that was). At what point is the species that created Aristotle going to be different than the one that creates our grandchildren a few hundred thousand or million years down the road?

Some species can interbreed, and certainly many pre-human versions could do just that because they were so closely related. Presumably we became who we are in part because of those oft-intermingled genes.

Those who came up with punctuated equalibrium, something UP thinks supports his thesis, have pointed out that by "fast" they mean a change happening within a 50,000 year time span, not literally overnight. Fifty thousand years is zippity quick in geologic time, but not really all that fast in the internet age. It's hard for a human living 1/625th of that time to comprehend how long it is. Or put it in perspective.

Edit: got rid of all the extra empty space at the bottom of this post. People sometimes use that as evidence that I have nothing to say

« Last Edit: September 11, 2010, 12:04:43 PM by ParkingPlaces »

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

I commented only to be sure that we don't give credence to a popular myth within creation circles that all humans spawned literally from a single man and woman. While there may be a specific speciation event for a specific species mathematically, the current understanding is that speciation occurs within populations and not individuals.

I think the point is interesting and I would like to dig deeper, if I can find some good material on the topic!

That's what that "..." was for right? After all, they were agreeing with me.

Anyway all that as a very long way to answer your question: Yes, i think Judah and Isreal were real flesh and blood people (Judah was Isreal's son) as were Abraham, Isaac, Adam, and Eve. But the details about their lives may or may not reflect reality. The Pentateuch consists mostly of oral histories, the kind that would have been told to children around campfires to explain who Hebrews are and where they come from.

I suppose it wouldn't frustrate me terribly much to find evidence that their was not in fact an actual human Jacob, and Judah, but i'd certainty be surprised.

Xphobe probably has it right. Given that each generation is in transition, there did there need to be a specific first couple who got all jiggy with each other. There is nothing that would require that the first human male could only have sex with the first human female for all of this to happen. The difference between species at that point would have been so small as to be indiscernible either by them or us. At some point the gene pool we call human would have emerged from others, but not necessarily with a bang (no pun intended. Well, maybe it was).

I came up with an analogy for speciation that I have been saving to bust out on a creationist. But it's just busting out of me and I'm sick of waiting.

Speciation is like milk. Milk sits in your refrigerator for some period of time. If you don't use it, you look in one day and it has become sour and chunky and has gone bad. It is not milk anymore. It has transformed.

But if you checked on the milk every minute between the time it was milk and the time went bad, you could not pinpoint exactly when it ceased being good and became bad. You know when it was definitely drinkable milk. And you know when it definitely was not. But you cannot draw any clear line between the two.

The same is true of species. Once upon a time, there were some smart-ish apes. A couple hundred thousand years later, they were... different. Still apes. Still not all that bright. But less hairy. And they talked. And they made cocktails, and built an internet of computers so they could look at each other naked without having to go through all the social ritual.

When did they stop being the original species? I dunno. You cannot identify the year, or decade or probably even the century. Maybe not even the millenia. But somewhere in there, they became us. We are like milk gone bad.

Screw, does the analogy lock us into only sampling the milk with our taste buds and thus having difficulty pinpointing the exact moment when the synecdochal process passes the milk / not-milk threshold? If the analogy allows for the existence and practical application of other tools and scales of measurement, then it doesn't work, I think.

I assume that we define the non-milk according the number of units of new organic and / or chemical components created over time.

Screw, does the analogy lock us into only sampling the milk with our taste buds and thus having difficulty pinpointing the exact moment when the synecdochal process passes the milk / not-milk threshold? If the analogy allows for the existence and practical application of other tools and scales of measurement, then it doesn't work, I think.

I assume that we define the non-milk according the number of units of new organic and / or chemical components created over time.

Remember you are talking to the mechanical engineer here and not the biologist or chemist. My understanding is the definition is the problem, not the sampling method. How do you draw the line? 50,000 ppm? Okay, but you could probably get away with 50,002 ppm and still manage to eat your Cheerios. Maybe more.

What does "bad" really mean, when talking about milk? What really is the difference between parent/ child species?

sour chunky milk ... I prefer my sunrise analogy because it's more cheerful, but really, just about any analogy will do, if it's a gradual process whose end result is obviously something other than it was before. When does a block of marble become a statue? When does a stream become a river? When does global warming become a problem?

Logged

I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

sour chunky milk ... I prefer my sunrise analogy because it's more cheerful, but really, just about any analogy will do, if it's a gradual process whose end result is obviously something other than it was before. When does a block of marble become a statue? When does a stream become a river? When does global warming become a problem?

Well, one problem I am constantly reminded of by creationists is that the milk, is still milk! It's just rotten, chunky milk. I really, really grow tired of the macro evolution bullshit spewed out by these people. And what's worse is that they believe in microevolution!!!! So I ask for the mechanism that stops micro from becoming macro...and we end up at extinction, and brand new species from who else - God himself! Of course!

Microevolution MUST happen, since it is beyond obvious, and it is intelligent design at work, as the micro changes allow species to adapt to new environments and pressures! OMG!!!!!

Well, one problem I am constantly reminded of by creationists is that the milk, is still milk! It's just rotten, chunky milk.

No, it is not. Milk is a liquid, with all sorts of proteins and fats suspended in it. Sour milk, is no longer that. Chemically it is different. It is a different consistency. It is still a dairy product, but think of that as the class or order.

If you want to still use dairy as your analogy, talk about churning milk into butter. At some point in the process it clearly is no longer milk, but it is not butter either. The line is blurry.

I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they? I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make.

I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they? I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make.

Oh boy! BS is out of the gate in denial of speciation! This should be fun!

And look, he agrees with "micro" evolution! Isn't that even more special. I do have to give some slight credit however, to acknowledging that the theory does in fact account for speciation - although BS is in full denial of it, and even adds that science somehow slipped it right into the classroom - and nobody noticed!

Are there posting rules for a commentary thread? I mean, beyond the normal rules?

I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they? I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make.

Analogies do tend to get stretched past their elasticity and experience plastic deformation, don't they. Eventually they get all stretched out of shape and hang down like sleeve of wizard. Just like that, in fact.

Logged

I stopped believing for a little while this morning. Journey is gonna be so pissed when they find out...

I am not sure, but they always get stretched too far, don't they? I once vowed to stop using them because the arguments I used them in invariably became about the analogy and not the point I was trying to make.

Analogies do tend to get stretched past their elasticity and experience plastic deformation, don't they. Eventually they get all stretched out of shape and hang down like sleeve of wizard. Just like that, in fact.

Oh boy! BS is out of the gate in denial of speciation! This should be fun!

And look, he agrees with "micro" evolution! Isn't that even more special. I do have to give some slight credit however, to acknowledging that the theory does in fact account for speciation - although BS is in full denial of it, and even adds that science somehow slipped it right into the classroom - and nobody noticed!

Are there posting rules for a commentary thread? I mean, beyond the normal rules?

If he is a normal creationist, he can tell us what he understands, but none of it can be about speciation.

I have yet to run across a creationist who understands it enough to make up good excuses why it isn't real. Instead they make up what it is and argue against that version. I trust BS will continue the tradition. (Of course I hope I'm wrong).

Logged

It isn't true that non-existent gods can't do anything. For instance, they were able to make me into an atheist.

If he is a normal creationist, he can tell us what he understands, but none of it can be about speciation.

I have yet to run across a creationist who understands it enough to make up good excuses why it isn't real. Instead they make up what it is and argue against that version. I trust BS will continue the tradition. (Of course I hope I'm wrong).

Why don't one of the three of you provide YOUR definition. I'd be very interested to see it.

Who wants to go first?

While you are free to engage in conversation in the commentary if you like, I recommend against it. It defeats the whole point of having a closed, moderated discussion and it will be redundant with the "debate". Plus, your plate is pretty full as it is. That is just my friendly advice which you may take or leave.

Agree up until the part I bolded. Let's just say that I do not believe everything coming out of the halls of science is absent some form of manipulation. We see forms of deceit and falsehoods in virtually every aspect of our lives....why should I feel science is any different?

Funny that he does not apply this level of skepticism to the bible or the people who wrote it.

Does anyone else want to elaborate on just how incomprehensible it is that all scientists are collaborating to lie about the foundation of biology? Or how in order to maintain that lie, they would have to fudge decades of results? And how all those fudged results would be useless for any science or practical applications? And how by now the entire house of cards would have collapsed?

I have a hard time putting into words how much I hate what the various religious establishments have done to undermine science.